IF the lad had played for the glory boys he would have got 1 match maybe, the same sort of tackle you will see tonight and esp tomorrow night go unpunished,

Mr powell ought to be asked what he thought about jewitt coming in as 3rd man on allgood,its been highlighted on twitter by an fc fan,exactly the same tackle,one gets a 4 match ban the other nothing.I would like to say the RFL stinks but I have no wish to flatter them.

I watched the replay of the tackle (as well as the highlights of the game) and couldn't see anything that warrants a ban never mind four games. As your chairman stated, the RFL have set themselves a very high bar for the season to come. Daryl Powell has come out with inflammatory statements in past when his side is involved and his comments appear to be an attempt to influence the panel at Red Hall to view incidents from a slanted perspective. It will interesting to see what action is taken if there are similar circumstances in future rounds.

Tbf, unless his claims about them making the decision on the appeal before receiving submissions and introduction of inadmissible evidence are untrue, I think they're snookered.

The first would be an embarrassing and damning breach of process, the second could be more technical but I wouldn't put much past them - I'm pretty certain I want to see the details more than they'll want to disclose them. If they make an issue of it, then it can't be hidden. I suspect he wrote it in part to bait them - knowing that that they'd have to be stupid and deeply lacking in self-awareness to bite back... fingers crossed!



Based on recent experience there's every chance they'll find a hidden coded message in the statement, which on 'careful consideration' will be interpreted as being offensive to people with hairy buttocks - who frankly have suffered enough. Mine is just downy fluff, btw.

You can't be charged with bringing the game into disrepute if you're pointing out mistakes or wrong-doing, if they're true and demonstratable. Well you can, but it makes those charging you look very bad indeed. If Hudge's claims about the behaviour of the panel are untrue he's royally knacked, though.

Hats off and much respect to Lee Radford. He has come out in support of us, Chris Chester and John Boudebza in the press. I expect this saga will rumble on for days. Click on link below. m.hulldailymail.co.uk/Hull-FC-co ... story.html

Hats off and much respect to Lee Radford. He has come out in support of us, Chris Chester and John Boudebza in the press. I expect this saga will rumble on for days. Click on link below. m.hulldailymail.co.uk/Hull-FC-co ... story.html

He should be knocking on Big Nige's door and telling him. I don't disagree with Hudge (wash my mouth out) but agree it would better done away from the public eye. perhaps with the support of other chairmen/owners.

First things first, i disagree with the RFL's decision and you as a club have been hard done by. It's clear Boudezba slipped. But Hudgells comments about Powell are ridiculous. Powell says;

“It’s really disappointing the type of tackles that can do that to people are still in the game. There’s a job needs to be done in terms of dealing with that, but that is no consolation to Shenny or to us.”

It's not a comment on Rovers, it's not a comment about the player, it's a comment on the state of the game today, so to say its "appalling" and Powell intended to 'inflame and prejudice this matter' and went "out of his way to publicly influence the suspension of a player at a rival club" is ludicrous.

I know Hudgell has previous but thats a Shaun Wane level meltdown.

To be fair in his post match interview on sky powell said there was no place in the game for tackles like that. He was fuming and stating he'd lost a player and it needed stamping out. He was very clearly blaming boudebza for intentionally coming in as 3rd man. I normally like powell but he was bang out of order with his comments.

i


I don't think that was what he said after the game though. That's probably what he said the following day after watching the video and Calming down.

So you think the 3rd man in going low DOESN'T need stamping out of the game? Or do you actually agree with Powell there?

Do you also believe Boudebza needed to perform the leg whip which caused the injury despite him joining the tackle was enough to complete the job before applying the undue pressure?



“That was a bad tackle – that’s got to be out of the game”

Is what Powell said about the tackle, everything after that was that Shenton needs sending for scans.

Campo having a pop now, the RFL are either going to have to hand a sh^t load of fines out, or bury their heads in the sand.

I'm also going to boycott Castleford away and call on ALL of the Rovers fans to do the same. We can call the boycott off only once Powell has apologized to little John. I suggest the boycott should be continued into next season without an apology.

Hello Cyclops is back.

Boudebza didn't apply any undue pressure neither was initial contact below the knee.

Powell had a hissy fit after the game

You only have one eye.

These are the facts please deal with them in an emotionally mature manner

What's the point? I thought the rfl was the enemy here, why financially punish another club? Besides, I follow Rovers all over so I'd also be cutting my nose off by not attending one of the most accessible away fixtures in the calendar.

I'm up for getting some buckets at the Wakefield game to start a collection for Hudgel's fine.
If we get enough to cover it we can get Powell a dummy with the left overs.

Totally agree Stan, I have a few good friends who are Cas fans, and they are as bemused about this whole sorry state as we are!

The wilfully reckless leg whip is your interpretation. But the video evidence is equally consistent with other interpretations, including it being an unfortunate accident. The failure of the panel to entertain this possibility, compounded by the withdrawal of the EGP, going outside the guidelines and Hudgell's allegations means it looks and feels like a stitch up. That is my interpretation.

I want to see fewer players injured, and there might be a case for making an example sometimes - but it has to be a good example, with less ambiguous evidence and more robust process.

A more robust process.....at the rfl, not when you can......spin spin spin the wheel of justice see how fast the b#stard turns.......this week avoid the 2 matches plus 2 for moral indignation from associate of the victim...oops you hit it...spin again for a free appeal...unlucky no appeal for an offence with a 2 game sentence. Random regrade of sentence means spin again......yep 4 games for a grade b ...early guilty plea.... spin again.....no early guilty plea...unlucky your out of spins. Next week......more spins ( please note Leeds and Wigan get to bring their own wheels known as the justice reform wheel which offers rehabilitation and minor fines for repeat offenders).

That seems a bit of an over-reaction. I get why Hudgell is ranting, and I suppose part of that is to bring the players together "back to the wall mentality" but he was a bit OTT in my opinion. Could have toned it down a bit and been more professional

If the bit about them inadvertently revealing that they'd pre-judged the appeal is true, then he might as well give 'em both barrels.
It's one thing'knowing' it, another actually seeing it.

I very much doubt the panel has been influenced by Powell's comments. As a coach who has just seen his captain suffer a serious injury he believes was caused by an illegal challenge, he has every right to voice his opinion. To think the panel take his, clearly biased, opinion into consideration is ludicrous.
It would be interesting to know if the panel had sight of footage that has not been made public. Both clubs will have filmed the game and this footage may be clearer, hence the certainty of two panels that the tackle was illegal. I personally don't think the Sky footage is conclusive either way and if this is the only footage used by the panel, I think the player has been hard done by.
However, if the other footage is clearer then the ban is fully justified.

It was a statement that only a lawyer could write. Strong, measured, passionate and ever so slightly thought provocative. Exactly to be expected from someone who operates in his specific line of legal practice.

Why go soft on the RFL? In these parts we all tell it as it is, non of that PC nonsense.

Somebody needs to rattle the RFL cages and hard, because their incident interpretation, their decision, the length of ban given for it and their subsequent rationale for it smacks of injustice or rough justice. They are looking to send out a signal to the rest of the league, but they have picked the wrong tackle and wrong example against which to do it. Darryl Powell's intervention and Michael Shenton's sad and unfortunate injury influenced and predetermined any initial panel review and subsequent appeal outcome. That's unfair and Neil Hudgell was right along with JP to drive this message home forcefully.

The only other footage is from the grassy knoll Boudebza was stood on with his rifle.

I'll give you a clue.....there is no other footage...none nothing.....none what so ever.

It's my understanding that Cas film all home and away games independently for video analysis, as do most other clubs.
I have no idea how the panel have found Boudebza guity if not.

Well it'll be interesting to see how the panel see that tackle on percival